| ▲ | lokar 8 hours ago |
| Is it not: https://knowledge.workspace.google.com/admin/security/create... The Org admin can put all sorts of restrictions on who can do what based on the client device setup. |
|
| ▲ | whateverboat 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Unrelated to this news, but this is so rudimentary, when the correct solution instead is: 1. Make it ridiculously easy to install hardware vendor keys and register it with OS of choice. (like a standardized dialog box in UEFI and a standardized/regulated IPMI-like interface) 2. Allow for only measured boot on those devices. 3. Provided facility to verify signatures. Do this on consumer and enterprise laptops and desktops alike and all of these weird set of conditions just go out of play and replaced by something much much simpler. |
|
| ▲ | saagarjha 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Why is there a policy to require “Chrome” and not a policy to require another browser, hmm? |
| |
| ▲ | insanitybit 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Google offers "Managed Chrome" as a service. What would you like them to do, offer "Managed Firefox"? Should AWS offer "Managed GCP"? | | |
| ▲ | makeitdouble 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Google offering "Managed Chrome" is probably the root issue. Call me old school, but wedging an already dominant browser to be the only full fledge option in GSuite using companies reeks anti-competition. | | |
| ▲ | lokar an hour ago | parent [-] | | You don’t have to use managed chrome to use gsuite | | |
| ▲ | aaomidi 22 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I mean the issue here is Google using its dominant power to push for a specific browser within a security software they control. This is a difference between America and Europe in mentality towards this. | | |
| ▲ | lokar 12 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I don’t think that’s true. They support OS verification for windows and Mac. If Firefox implemented verification (I doubt they would) and there was customer demand I think they would support it. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | saagarjha 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I don’t think Google should also offer a product that detects “managed Chrome” | | |
| ▲ | eli 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I don't think Google should also be allowed to remain in charge of Chrome at all but here we are. | |
| ▲ | insanitybit 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Uh, why? Context Aware Access is a policy attestation service. Managed Chrome is exactly the sort of thing you'd have policies for. |
| |
| ▲ | hobofan 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Organization admins may roll out hardened Firefox settings via their MDM solution, and then based on that want to restrict usage to Firefox. |
| |
| ▲ | Macha 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Because Google is able to configure Chrome to the admin's liking. | | |
| ▲ | lokar an hour ago | parent [-] | | Yep, there are a lot of high risk settings, especially extensions |
| |
| ▲ | 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
| ▲ | realusername 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > The Org admin can put all sorts of restrictions on who can do what based on the client device setup. can you put a restriction to ban Chrome and force Firefox then? |
| |
|
| ▲ | Tostino 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| "wow look at all these options available...to limit users to only use software provided by the same corp" you are missing the point entirely. |
